BACKGROUND: The association between consumption of multivitamins and breast cancer is inconsistent in epidemiologic studies. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies to evaluate multivitamin intake and its relationship with breast cancer risk. METHODS: The published literature was systematically searched and reviewed using MEDLINE (1950 through July 2010), EMBASE (1980 through July 2010), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010 issue 1). Studies that included specific risk estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. The bias and quality of these studies were assessed with REVMAN statistical software (version 5.0) and the GRADE method of the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Eight of 27 studies that included 355,080 subjects were available for analysis. The total duration of multivitamin use in these trials ranged from 3 to 10 years. The frequency of current use in these studies ranged from 2 to 6 times/week. In analyses by duration of use 10 years or longer or 3 years or longer and by frequency 7 or more times/week that were reported in these studies, multivitamin use was not significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer. Only 1 recent Swedish cohort study concluded that multivitamin use is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. The results of a meta-analysis that pooled data from 5 cohort studies and 3 case-control studies indicated that the overall multivariable relative risk and odds ratio were 0.10 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; p = 0.98) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00; p = 1.00), respectively. The association was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Multivitamin use is likely not associated with a significant increased or decreased risk of breast cancer, but these results highlight the need for more case-control studies or randomized controlled clinical trials to further examine this relationship.

Purpose: We assessed the efficacy and safety of different modalities using the network meta-analysis for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein invasion. The interested modalities included stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) combined with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) or TACE, TACE plus sorafenib, and use of SBRT, HAIC, sorafenib, and TACE alone. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched for eligible studies published up to June 2017. We used network meta-analysis to compare the disease control rate (DCR) and severe adverse events for the eight interested regimens included in this analysis. Study quality was assessed following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations method. Results: Fifteen studies published between 2010 and 2016 involving a total of 2,359 patients were enrolled in this network meta-analysis. With indirect comparison of DCR and overall safety, the pooled results showed that RT plus HAIC was the most effective regimen in treating advanced HCC with portal vein tumor thrombosis, followed by RT plus TACE. HAIC alone and sorafenib combined with HAIC appeared least effective intervention regimens. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred less in the patients who received SBRT alone compared with other interested regimens. Conclusion: 3D-RT combined with HAIC or TACE showed more favorable treatment responses compared with other regimens in advanced HCC patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis.

Background: Many researchers use observed questionnaire scores to evaluate score reliability and to make conclusions and inferences regarding quality-of-life outcomes. The amount of false alarms from medical diagnoses that would be avoided if observed scores were substituted with expected scores is interesting, and understanding these differences is important for the care of cancer patients. Using expected scores to estimate the reliability of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) is rarely reported in published papers. We investigated the reliability of patient responses to a quality-of-life questionnaire and made recommendations for future studies of the quality of life of patients. Methods: A total of 115 patients completed the EORTC core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (version 3) after radiotherapy. The observed response scores, assumed to be one-dimensional, were summed and transformed into expected scores using the Rasch rating scale model with WINSTEPS software. A series of simulations was performed using a unified bootstrap procedure after manipulating scenarios with different questionnaire lengths and patient numbers to estimate the reliability at 95% confidence intervals. Skewness analyses of the 95% CIs were compared to detect different effects between groups according to the two data sets of observed and expected response scores. Results: We found that (1) it is necessary to report CIs for reliability and skewness coefficients in papers; (2) data derived from expected response scores are preferable to making inferences; and (3) visual representations displaying the 95% CIs of skewness values applied to item-by-item analyses can provide a useful interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes. Conclusion: Reliability coefficients can be reported with 95% CIs by statistical software to evaluate the internal consistency of respondent scores on questionnaire items. The SPSS syntax procedures for estimating the reliability of the 95% CI, expected score generation and visual skewness analyses are demonstrated in this study. We recommend that effect sizes such as a 95% CI be reported along with p values reporting significant differences in quality-of-life studies.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) followed by lipiodol infusion in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients with advanced HCC and PVTT who received HAIC with regimens of cisplatin, mitomycin-C, and 5-fluorouracil followed by lipiodol infusion were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was tumor response rate. The modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was used for assessment of treatment response. The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Prognostic factors for survival also were evaluated. Results: The median OS and PFS were 11.9 and 9.5 months, respectively. Seventeen patients (53.1%) achieved objective response, and 23 patients (71.9%) achieved disease control. The length of survival in the responder and disease control groups was longer than in the non-responder and progressive disease groups after two cycles of HAIC (responder vs. non-responder: 16.5 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.001; disease control vs. progressive disease: 12.3 vs. 5.6 months, p < 0.001) and after completing HAIC (responder vs. non-responder: 15.7 vs. 6.9 months, p = 0.001; disease control vs. progressive disease: 13.6 vs. 6.9 months, p < 0.001). Better survival was associated with Child-Pugh A liver function (p = 0.013), with early response to two HAIC cycles (p = 0.009), and with response (p = 0.02) and disease control (p = 0.001) after completing HAIC treatment. Conclusion: HAIC followed by lipiodol infusion is a safe and feasible treatment for advanced HCC with PVTT. Patients with early response could continue HAIC treatment with expected prolonged survival.